Saturday, December 12, 2015

The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

Here is a chart that illustrates, better than anything I've seen, the fundamental difference between the two US political parties.

It wasn't always this way. There were lots of honest Republicans when I was growing up, from Philadelphia's Thacher Longstreth, to Millicent Fenwick, to Gerald Ford. Now I can hardly think of a single one, with Bob Ehrlich (former governor of Maryland) being an exception.

Today's Republican party is home to the craziest, most extreme, lying lunatics ever assembled in one place.

And it's no coincidence that of all the lying liars that represent the party today, the biggest lying liar of them all is Ben Carson -- who is also a favoriteofthecreationists.

50 comments:

I mean, remember that Republican president we elected in 1992, who sexually assaulted all those women, sold pardons when he left office, and now runs a couple-hundred-million dollar crime syndicate selling political influence.

And his wife, who is the overwhelming favorite to be the nominee of the Republican Party for president, who was the worst secretary of state in us history, single-handedly turned Libya into a terrorist hellhole, and who sold influence to foreign governments via a secret private illegal email account that has now been lost and can't be examined by the FBI.

Lots of allegations, Egnor, but very little to back them up. You live in a fantasy world where you can't distinguish fact from fiction.That's why you're a creationist.

Ironically, Egnor, Bill Clinton is rated as the most honest person in all the people covered in the survey. And considering his dishonesty, what do you think that says about all the Republicans who are far, far more dishonest than he?

[Bill Clinton is rated as the most honest person in all the people covered in the survey]

Well that sort of clears up any misunderstanding about the credibility of the survey.

I guess they didn't survey the Arkansas Supreme Court, who disbarred Clinton for lying.

You're a prototypical Democrat. You hate Republicans like Carson because of his religion, and look the other way when it comes to the actual crimes committed by your Democrat idols.

The Democrat Party is a crime syndicate. Our current Democrat president began his political career at a fundraiser in the living room of a confessed serial bomber, attended church for 20 years with a psychotic anti-semitic "pastor" who was his mentor, and his Democrat predecessor president is a serial sex offender and rapist who sold pardons and, with his wife, runs an influence peddling business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Her use of a private email server as secretary of state (which itself is a felony and an obvious danger to national security) was clearly intended to cover up her financial transactions with foreign governments and magnates, and now she's lost tens of thousands of the emails.

Don't worry, Sherlock. The emails were only about "Chelsea's wedding". Nothing to see there...

Again, lots of smoke to distract from the main issue. So, Hilary and BIll and Barack are liars. So why are the Republicans even worse liars? That's the point of the posting, which you are doing your absolute best to avoid addressing.

And yet presidential historians nearly unanimously rate Clinton's and Obama's presidencies as more successful than the last two Republican presidents. That's because the historians can look at the entire record; they're not filled with partisan hatred the way you are.

Historically, the Democrats indeed supported slavery and Jim Crow. But you know as well as I do that that hasn't been the case for the last 50 years. It was under Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson that the major events of desegregation occurred, not under Republicans. And minorities vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. You know that's so, and you have no answer to it.

Your ridiculously partisan attitude is what causes you to dismiss the proven record of Republican lies as "left website nitpicking sound-bytes [sic]". You can't deal with the truth, so that's all you have. The Republicant frontrunners lie and lie and lie, just as you do. No wonder you feel at home with them.

Truman, Kennedy and Johnson courted and fellated their segregationist allies their entire career. Truman did try to desegregate the Army, and he wasn't personally a racist, but he cut all kinds of deals with Dixiecrats to maintain power. He aided segregation in the South to get Dixiecrat votes.

Kennedy was a moron who didn't give a shit about racial justice as long as it didn't interfere with his promiscuity. He also courted southern bigots whose votes he needed to win. His brother as AG harassed and persecuted MLK.

Johnson was a racist to the bone who spent most of his senate career blocking Republican civil rights bills. He actually spearheaded the opposition to anti-lynching legislation proposed by Republicans. He turned on a dime in 1964 because the only thing he was more adept at than racism was politics, and he saw that the tide was turning and (to use Nixon's phrase) "there was no more juice to be sucked out of the rotten fruit of racism).

To pass civil rights legislation, Johnson had to rely on overwhelming Republican support for civil rights. Johnson's opponents on civil rights were nearly all Democrats--his closest allies.

Even after Johnson left office, 80% of southern schools were still segregated ( a decade after Brown). Johnson wouldn't piss off his southern Democrat buddies.

Within 2 years of coming into office, Nixon massively desegregated southern schools--80% were desegregated by 1971. Nixon began affirmative action, to overcome the most racist constituency in politics, which were Democrat labor unions. Nixon had been Eisenhower's point man on civil rights in the 50's, and had a long and very honorable history of fighting against Democrats to obtain civil rights for blacks.

The heroes of the civil rights movement were Republicans, who fought for civil rights for a century against Democrat racists. Nixon played a major role in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.

Succinctly: Brown ruled against separate but equal, and Nixon put it into effect. (Chief Justice Warren, the architect of Brown, was a Republican, of course)

Academic historians are among the most leftist-Democrat sectors of academia. Their opinion counts for nothing, and they are most certainly partisan.

[And minorities vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.]

It's no coincidence. That was Johnson's goal--he told a colleague, after the Great Society social programs passed "we'll have those niggers votin' Democrat for 200 years." He realized that blacks were more useful to Democrats in the voting booth than hanging from a tree, so they changed tactics.

[It was under Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson that the major events of desegregation occurred, not under Republicans.]

What a stupid fucking thing to say. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were lapdogs of the Dixiecrats, and all of them collaborated with racists to hold power.

The first civil rights laws since Reconstruction were passed by Eisenhower in 57 and 60 with overwhelming Republican support and Democrat opposition.

Republicans were responsible for the civil rights legislation--all of it, even under Johnson. It was Republican votes in the house and senate, not democrat votes, that passed the legislation. What made Johnson unique is that he was the first Democrat president who didn't crush civil rights legislation.

The notion that Democrats were civil rights heroes is a lie. Republicans were the champions of civil rights, and civil rights legislation finally passed only when enough Democrats voted as Republicans had always voted. You need to read more widely.

Wasn't it the last Republican that got the US into the recent mess in Iraq? All over lies about WMDs? Colon Powell, one of the few Republicans with any morals, couldn't run away fast enough after being manipulated into lying at the UN.

As I said, Truman was that rare Democrat who wasn't personally a racist. He tried to do the right thing, but he was totally dependent on the southern vote, which meant he had to sleep with Dixiecrats, so he did, with much vigor.

His executive orders desegregating the Army were not enforced to any great degree, because he couldn't afford to piss off his racist Democrat supporters too much.

Segregation of the Army was accomplished by Eisenhower, who immediately on becoming president ordered the military desegregated, and unlike Truman, he made it happen. The last segregated black unit was disbanded in 1954.

Truman gave the order, but didn't enforce it, because he was a Democrat coward beholding to his Dixiecrat comrades.

Eisenhower walked the walk, because he had guts, and because his party favored desegregation.

Here's a rubric that works: Segregation was done by Democrats, desegregation was done by Republicans. It is invariably true, and it saves you a lot of time.

I always suspected that Egnor was a bigot who didn't actually give a damn about minorities. Minorities only exist for Egnor so far as they can serve his insane fights against Democrats, liberals, atheists, and so forth. Well, now he's on the record as saying agreeing with the statement that black people are too stupid to realize that the political party they overwhelmingly support is actually racist. Congrats, Egnor, for exposing yourself.

Actually, Eisenhower's record on desegregation was as mixed as any moderate politician of his time. For example, he only gave very tepid and basically no public support to the decision in Brown, and he refused to meet with Martin Luther King, despite King's request. Johnson's record on civil rights was much, much better than Eisenhower's, as all historians agree.No sane person would deny this. You are blinded by hatred.

Regarding Johnson's record on civil rights, it depends on whether you consider his record before he was buying black votes or after.

He was a drooling racist through his political career up through his Senate leadership- he championed resistance to Republican civil rights bills throughout Eisenhower's presidency, and defiantly blocked federal anti-lynching legislation so his Dem buddies in the KKK (the Democrat enforcement arm in the south) could still have fun on their nighttime tree-decorating excursions.

He was a civil rights hero when he realized in 1964 that the gig was up and racism didn't produce the votes it used to. In fine Democrat fashion, he dumped history down the memory hole and proclaimed his undying devotion to equal rights for all, as long as he got their votes.

Me, I kinda' like my civil rights heroes to have fought for civil rights before it was popular, like Republicans did for a hundred years. Since the 1930's Republicans were losing the black vote--FDR was popular among blacks, despite his ugly record on civil rights, but Republicans still fought hard for civil rights, not for votes like Johnson, but because it was the right thing to do.

I like my civil rights heroes who were heroes even when it didn't get them votes.

First through tenth amendments, inclusive. Right to freedom of religion, speech, assembly, keep and bear arms, etc.

Those are gay rights, and everybody's rights.

Gay marriage is not a civil right, anymore than polygamy is a right.

And, I point out to you Shallit, that blacks as a demographic are very unsympathetic to gay marriage. They understand what real rights are, and what fake rights are.

And I don't blame you for changing the topic from Democrat racism to gay rights. If I were a Democrat, I would too.

Regarding whether I "like" civil rights, who are you to judge me? I have never discriminated against or for a person because of race personally or professionally. I support color-blind law. I oppose all racism.I refuse to support the party of racism in America, which is the Democrat Party. A large part of my medical practice has always been minority and poor patients--much larger than many neurosurgeons in my area, who prosper in taking care of a more affluent demographic. I walk the walk.

I believe in real equality and real civil rights. What I refuse to do is to engage in virtue-signaling by parroting politically correct liberal bullshit so lefties like you will think me enlightened.

No, you don't. You're a liar and a hypocrite through and through -- but we already knew that.

Gay marriage is not a civil right

Yup, just like inter-racial marriage was not a civil right in the eyes of Southern racists. You're exactly like them; only the minority has changed.

blacks as a demographic are very unsympathetic to gay marriage. They understand what real rights are, and what fake rights are.

I see. When they agree with you, black people are perceptive. When they disagree with you, they are morons. How consistent of you!

The truth is obvious to anyone not blinded with hatred like you are. Black people know their friends well, and their friends are today almost exclusively in the Democratic party. But black Americans, as a group, are more likely to be evangelical Christians, and evangelical Christians hate the gay. Also, they are people, and people often find it hard to extrapolate their own experiences to the experiences of others. So you get black people being unsympathetic to the plight of gays being discriminated against, and Jews being unsympathetic to the plight of Muslims being discriminated against, and so forth. It's human nature to stick up for your own perceived in group and lack sympathy for other groups.

And I don't blame you for changing the topic from Democrat racism to gay rights.

Actually, the topic of the post had nothing to do with "Democrat racism". It was about how the current crop of Republicans lie much more than the current crop of Democrats. That is the topic, and one you have steadfastly refused to address.

I refuse to support the party of racism in America, which is the Democrat Party.

That was historically partly true, fifty years ago or more. However, to maintain it is still true today is quite literally insane. It's the Republicans who have tried and succeeded in weakening the Voting Rights Act. It's the Republicans who have put the emphasis on silly sideshows like voter ID laws (when voter fraud is basically nonexistent) for the sole purpose of preventing blacks from voting. It's the Republican party that was a friendly home to real racists like Strom Thurmond (who switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in 1964).

You don't believe in civil rights at all. The only thing you care about is your obsessive hatred for Democrats, liberals, atheists, and evolutionary biologists.

[It's the Republicans who have tried and succeeded in weakening the Voting Rights Act]

It was the Republicans who passed the Voting Rights Act, asshole. Now that the South is Republican, blacks vote there in higher percentages than they do in Democrat states like Massachusetts. So the Supreme Court in 2013 said that the special scrutiny required by the Act was no longer necessary because blacks in the states under scrutiny were voting in higher percentages than in states not under scrutiny.

Sorry Shallit, you Democrats are 60 years too late on voting rights. You should have supported it when you were suppressing black votes.

[It's the Republicans who have put the emphasis on silly sideshows like voter ID laws (when voter fraud is basically nonexistent) for the sole purpose of preventing blacks from voting.]

"Using data from the Cooperate Congressional Election Study, which sampled 32,000 voters in 2008 and over 50,000 voters in 2010, the authors conclude that as many as 14 percent of non-citizens—potentially as high as 2.8 million—are registered to vote. The authors conclude that a mid-point estimate of 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008"

You don't like voter ID laws? Heck, if if you can vote without ID, why can't you buy a gun without ID?

[It's the Republican party that was a friendly home to real racists like Strom Thurmond (who switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in 1964)]

Thurmond was the rare Dixiecrat who switched: I know of only 3, and they switched after they had stopped supporting segregation. Nearly all Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat party and remained Democrats for life. Robert KKK Byrd, Democrat Senate majority leader into the 1990's, is a good example.

Why would a Dixiecrat who supported segregation join the Republican party that had opposed segregation for a hundred years, and that had provided the votes necessary for the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts?

The Voting Rights Act was "jointly sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL), both of whom had worked with Attorney General Katzenbach to draft the bill's language". The "Senate passed the bill by a 77-19 vote (Democrats 47-16, Republicans 30-2)".

In the House, the "committee's ranking Republican, William McCulloch (R-OH), generally supported expanding voting rights, but he opposed both the poll tax ban and the coverage formula, and he led opposition to the bill in committee." Also "the House passed the Voting Rights Act by a 333-85 vote (Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24)." (all quotes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 )

So let's recap: the bill was introduced in the Senate by a Democrat and a Republican. The language was drafted in part by a Democratic Attorney General. A Republican led opposition to the bill in a House committee. More Democrats than Republicans voted for it in both the Senate and in the House. It was signed by a Democratic president.

Nobody denies that Republican support was crucial to the bill's passage. But to claim that "Republicans passed the Voting Rights Act" is just fantasy.

Yes, voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. Study after study proves that. You can only cite insane *estimates* from partisan blogs, whereas I can provide actual statistics from reputable sources. For example:

And all of this is still not relevant to my original post. Why don't you address the clear evidence of dishonesty among the top Republican candidates? Why do you think the most dishonest Republican candidates are doing the best in the polls, while the most honest ones (e.g., Jeb Bush) are doing the worst?

As I said, I have no interest in a lefty website's vetting of political soundbites. I don't give a shit.

Regarding voter fraud, it's like global warming (ubiquitous, dangerous), except that it's real. There is no question. In cities like Chicago, it is massive. The Chicago Democrat organization is basically a voter fraud machine. Ditto countless other Democrat big city political machines, ala Tammany Hall. I won't debate it because I don't debate facts.

[But to claim that "Republicans passed the Voting Rights Act" is just fantasy.]

The first was the Republican bill of 1875, which was opposed, ignored and undercut by Democrats. The second was the Republican bill of 1957, which was opposed, ignored and undercut by Democrats. The third was the Republican bill of 1960, which was opposed, ignored and undercut by Democrats. The fourth was the Republican bill (and some Democrats) of 1964, which was opposed, ignored and undercut by many Democrats. The fifth, often called the Voting Rights Act, although it was merely an extension of the four previous Republican voting rights federal laws, was opposed, ignored and undercut by southern Democrats until, by enormous Republican (and finally some Democrat) pressure, it was obeyed by southern Democrats.

To claim that the Democrats are responsible for voting rights is like claiming the the Soviets were responsible for the defeat of Japan in WWII, because they declared war at the very end of the struggle and tried to claim credit for victory.

The Democrat involvement in voting rights can be summed up simply: Democrats opposed voting rights for blacks for 150 years, using violence and demagoguery and treachery. In the mid 1960's, (some) Democrats realized that it was in their interest to support voting rights, so they began to vote like Republicans had been voting for 100 years.

As I said, I have no interest in a lefty website's vetting of political soundbites. I don't give a shit.

That was the topic of my posting. So -- either you are a liar, and you are interested, or you're a troll who wants to derail the main topic. Very revealing!

Oh -- and Politifact is not a "lefty website"; it's non-partisan. I can understand perfectly well why you refuse to address the lies documented there -- it's because facts do not interest you at all. (That's why you're a creationist and global warming denier.) All that interests you is your obsessive hatred for Democrats and liberals. Admitting the truth about the current Republican crop of candidates does not serve that hatred, so you cannot deal with it. It's quite clear.

There have been 5 federal voting rights acts

Nice try to muddy the waters and derail your own lies. You spoke of the Voting Rights Act, in capitals, which can only refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

To claim that the Democrats are responsible for voting rights

Who made that claim? The only sensible way to interpret the historical record is that both Democrats and Republicans were responsible. Actually, it would be more sensible to say that the South (both Democrats and Republicans, but the South at that time was overwhelmingly Democratic) opposed voting rights and the rest of the country largely supported them.

It was the South who traditionally opposed rights for blacks. From 1877 to 1965, the South was largely Democratic. Since 1965, it has shifted and become Republican. The Southern racists were mostly Democrats for a hundred years, but over the last fifty years, they've become mostly been Republican. Every sensible person, and nearly every historian, agrees with that, Egnor.

Republicans own voting rights

A statement that simply cannot be justified through the historical record, especially now that Republicans have become the enemy of voting rights. See http://correctrecord.org/the-2016-gop-record-on-voting-rights/ . But we already know that facts do not interest you.

[It was the South who traditionally opposed rights for blacks. From 1877 to 1965, the South was largely Democratic. Since 1965, it has shifted and become Republican. The Southern racists were mostly Democrats for a hundred years, but over the last fifty years, they've become mostly been Republican.]

It wasn't the "South"--it was the Democrats who traditionally opposed rights for blacks. Democrats controlled the South utterly, and they had much power in the North in certain areas as well. The opposition to civil rights is ideological, and that ideology is historically the coreof the Democrat Party platform. Even Northern Democrats who supported civil rights personally--Hubert Humphrey comes to mind--cut deals continuously with segregationists. Democrats did not survive politically on the national stage unless they collaborated actively and enthusiastically with fellow Democrat racists.

By the 60's, racism was on the wane, and civil rights was rising. Democrats realized that there was no longer political profit to be made in segregation, so they began imitating Republicans and supporting civil rights, at least on paper.

In the South, racism waned, and other issues, like economics, waxed. In addition, there were millions of people who migrated to the New South who were not Democrats and had no investment in the traditional Democrat racism.

The South didn't turn Republican in congress and the senate and local elections until 1996. The old Southerners remained Democrats mostly--racists obviously didn't join the Party of Lincoln in large numbers. Republicans have always championed color-blind law, opposed segregation, began Affirmative Action, and they desegregated segregated schools in the early 1970's after Democrats refused to do so. When the South was racist, it was Democrat. When it ceased being racist, it became Republican.

The Democrat Party retains its racist core today in its race-baiting. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are simply black versions of George Wallace and Lester Maddox--they are all race-hustlers who feed off racial hatred and fear to enrich and empower themselves.

Democrat race-hustlers screamed "Black rapists are raping white girls!" in 1950 when it got them power and votes. Democrat race-hustlers scream "White cops are killing black boys!" in 2015 because it gets them power and votes.

For Democrats, it's always about power and votes, and race-baiting is the tool.

When the South was racist, it was Democrat. When it ceased being racist, it became Republican.

Now Egnor is a comedian. I know the South pretty well; part of my family is from there, and I've traveled there multiple times. Anyone who claims it has "ceased being racist" has no idea what he's talking about. I've only heard the slur "nigger" bandied about in public a few times in my life, and they've all been in the South. (In North Carolina a couple of years ago a man brandished his Glock proudly as he explained it me it was for use on black people.) Monuments to Civil War heroes are everywhere in North Carolina.

Ever heard of State. Rep. Charles Sharpe? He's a good Republican just like you. Just happens that he doesn't believe in interracial marriage. "Cows and horses don't mix. I don't want any of my people doing it," he said. Oh, yeah, and he also went to prison two years for extortion. Yup, a real fine Republican.

And of course, you completely ignored my list of how today's Republicans are trying to gut voting rights. http://correctrecord.org/the-2016-gop-record-on-voting-rights/ That's because facts simply do not matter to you. You have your bizarre obsession that today's Democrats are racists and no facts can change that.

My contention that the South was (and is still) largely racist, not Democrats per se is easily checked, for example, by looking at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, broken down by party and region.

In terms of both percentage and absolute number, in both the House and Senate, more Southern Democrats voted for it than Southern Republicans. Same thing for Northern Democrats versus Northern Republicans. But we already know you cannot deal in facts. All you have are your prejudices, which are pretty ugly.

[white cops are killing black people. "black men were seven times more likely than white men to die by police gunfire while unarmed".]

There recently have been police shootings/killings of unarmed black men in Chicago, Ferguson, Cleveland, Milwaukee, New York, San Francisco, and Baltimore. Shootings have been by local police, recruited, hired, trained and supervised by municipal officials, who are ultimately responsible and accountable for police conduct.

What political party do the municipal officials who supervise police in Chicago, Ferguson, Cleveland, Milwaukee, New York, San Francisco, and Baltimore belong to?

You really are insane, Egnor. First you deny the problem and pretend it doesn't exist at all. Then you acknowledge the problem, but find some twisted way to blame it on Democrats. But you can only do so by selectively choosing where to look.

You didn't mention Artago Damon Howard, shot in Union County, Arkansas. I can't tell who controls the county after a quick search, but Union County voted 62.3% Republican in 2012.

More insanity. You brought the subject up, not I. I pointed out that your implication was false. You then changed the topic to Democratic control of cities. But your examples were selective.

You are unable to deal with facts.

But all this is trolling and has nothing to do with the topic of my post. You cannot deal with any of the issues I've raised, so you constantly try to derail, derail, derail.

As for "Republicans are racists", I've never made that claim. This is another insane fantasy on your part. There are racists in both parties. It is true, however, that roughly speaking, white Republicans are somewhat more racist than white Democrats, and when actual racists run for office, they currently seem to choose the Republican party more often than the Democratic party. (David Duke was elected as a Republican.)

Of course you made that claim. That's implicit in your whole argument.

Here's where we stand: I've documented Democrat racism over the past 200 years, including slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and opposition to voting rights. In the modern era, I've used your (witless) example of police shootings of unarmed blacks to show that a high percentage of violence against blacks occurs under the supervision of Democrat officials (Rahm Emmanuel is just the latest example of a Democrat sleazebag, who covered up the video of his cop shooting a black teen so he could win re-election).

Most of black suffering in America has been at the hands of the Democrat party, first as Democrat slaves, and now as victims of Democrat governance.

You reply by linking to some obscure poll that claims a few percent difference between white Republicans and white Democrats on questions about racist attitudes.

I cite 200 years of Democrat slavery and oppression and murder, you cite a poll.

In the modern era, I've used your (witless) example of police shootings of unarmed blacks to show that a high percentage of violence against blacks occurs under the supervision of Democrat officials

You lie again. It was not "my example". You brought it up and said it was racist to claim that it happened. You also haven't shown anything like "a high percentage". You have produced no statistics at all. I have produced statistic after statistic to show you are wrong. You never even addressed most of them.

As for my poll, you have no answer to it, so you have to just dismiss it as "obscure".

You really have nothing at all except your lies and your obsessive hatred of Democrats. Get some help.

One turns the cheek in reply to assaults on oneself, not to assaults on others.

I'm not the victim of Democrats. My responsibility is to tell the truth. Even people who have been victims have a responsibility to speak out. Black people are the victims, and by voting for Democrats, they seem to turned the other cheek quite far. Too far, because they have a responsibility to the truth.

Hmm.. To me Mr. Egnor gives the impression that he takes it all rather personally - and he certainly discredits himself with his very unchristian tone of voice. But still his answer doesn't come as a real surprise to me. So now we indeed have this conundrum: he apparently speaks on behalve of others, while these others have no clue that he does. Also I don't see a reason why these others couldn't speak out for themselves on this website. So all and all I'm a bit puzzled by Mr. Egnor's words and behaviour, after all he is no-ones saviour.

Pretty funny--you get your butt kicked in a debate about your favorite white-supremacist organization--and now you claim it's un-Christian of me to to do so.

The Lord spoke rather harshly about the eternal fate of unbelievers--'where the worm turns and the fire is not quenched' is a nice paraphrase. He spoke more of hell than heaven, if you read carefully. The Christianity you seem to be confusing with the real thing is a nice mainstream Protestant social gospel Christianity, which has little to do with the real thing. The New Testament is full of strong admonitions about sin and arrogance on behalf of evil. Second Peter and Revelation are rather clear examples, and of course the Old Testament is not for the faint-of-heart. As I recall Jeremiah didn't pull punches.

Regarding the little brownshirt who sued her friends because she couldn't bear look at a prayer, my post is a tender caress compared to the fate of souls trapped in her militant brand of atheism.

But I do appreciate your theological insights--I love it when atheists tell me how to be a Christian. I'm having a stressful day at work, and it's nice to have a good laugh.

I see your point, but in this case I can also understand why Mr. Egnor wanted the address this subject.

I'm from Holland, that picturesque little country where they have wooden shoes to kick but and windmills to fight, but most of the time these are not the kind of things that will lead to a fruitful discussion.

The Lord said much worse things about the Pharisees. You must have mistaken Him for Milquetoast Jesus, who liberals get confused with the real Lord. I wonder if the fact that Milquetoast Jesus never criticizes Leftists has anything to do with the misunderstanding.

[Yes, I imagine being universally despised by your colleagues would be rather stressful.]

I like how Egnor responds to a post about the relative frequency of lying, that links an article that states all politcians lie, with accusations that Bill Clinton lies.

Yeah, we know you dolt. He just doesn't lie AS MUCH as some other politicians. Look at the chart you fucking gimp.

It's like religious fundamentalists cannot comprehend shades, or gradations. Words like 'some times', 'probably', 'often' and 'rarely' are incomprehensible to them. It's completely black or completely white to them. Things either happen constantly or they are impossible and require miracles.

Until now I also haven't seen Mr. Egnor wipe the dust off his shoes and move on, and I wonder why, since speaking harsh words to Mr. Shallit like Jesus did to the Pharisees don't seem to have that much effect.

The sad part of this is that Schmucknor is a neurosurgeon. Much like his former colleague, Ben Carson, he labors under an avalanche of stupidity. However, Dr. Carson is at least a nice person; Schmucknor is a vicious attack dog, the pit bull of physicians.

Yes, it's fascinating. Egnor and his ilk seem to think that because I point out the untruthfulness of the current crop of Republicans, that means I necessarily approve of everything Democrats do. No, Obama and both Clintons are deceptive, too. They're just not nearly as deceptive as people like Trump, Cruz, and Carson. Those three are in the Olympics of lying; by contrast, the Clintons and Obama are rank amateurs.

It's almost as if being a fanatic makes a person think that everybody else is a fanatic, too.

Egads, Egnor is just a walking compendium of GOP canards. The teleprompter joke alone was sufficient to condemn his rants as just so much partisan hackery. A finer example of miseducation would be hard to find.

Thanks Egnor for the belly laughs over the notion that the south is no longer racist. My racist relations there will be most amused to know they don't exist.